Appeal No. 2004-1095
Application No. 09/457,608
appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 1 through 18.
"It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102
can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim." In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ
136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GMBH v. American Hoist and Derrick, 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ
481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Independent claim 1 requires, in pertinent part, a live
agent, comparing an incoming query to stored queries, and
providing the result of the comparison to the live agent for the
agent to use in responding to the query. Independent claim 10
similarly recites a system that compares an incoming query to
stored queries and provides the result of the comparison to an
agent for the agent to use in responding to the incoming query.
Appellant asserts (Brief, pages 10-11) that in Busey the WRU,
which compares an incoming query to a database, works
independently from the WebACD, where customers have contact with
an agent. We agree.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007